John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[DankNuggets]

What a laugh of a debate. Horrible.

Palin didn't answer SEVERAL questions. As a matter of fact, she said early on that she wasn't going to answer the moderators questions like they wanted and was going to 'straight talk' to America.

WTF?? :/ you can't go into a debate and start by saying you're not going to answer the questions! She basically undermined the entire political debate process.

I hear a lot of pundits saying that she held her own or that she did OK by not making a fool of herself. I guess I can understand their low expectations after 8 years of Bush making a fool of himself, but I expect better out our politicians.

Several times she refused to answer the question and started on a 2 min stump.

I watched this debate not to see her fuck up, but because i've never really seen Biden address the issues. A have to say i'm 500% more in favor of Obama/Biden after watching that debate, and it has little to do with Palin. Biden answered almost all the questions, and didn't revert to stumping the same tired lines over and over again. He had solid foreign policy responses, catching Palin in some lies, which probably would've been picked up on by McCain himself though. He's not Barak's supervisor when it comes to foreign policy - he doesn't dictate to him - but he's one hell of an asset compared to Palin, who didn't even get the general's name right.


Also, for the love of God and Mohammed, can someone teach the fuckers how to pronounce "Iraq" , "Iran" , and "Ahmadinejad".

Obama's the only candidate i've seen who hasn't tried to hawk up a loogie when saying the guy's name. It may be a subconcious part of them to show disrespect to Iran, but that would make it worse. I don't need my leaders mocking other countries and cultures, they're are most powerful diplomat.

[404 Not Found]

Speaking about horrible points in the debate, I found some that annoy the hell out of me.

Someone explain the term: Joe Sixpack

What the f' does that mean? Is it supposed to be an example of what Sarah feels the avg male is in our nation, that of a 6 pack a day beer drinker?

How are Hockey Moms being used in the manner of which she is throwing it about? I know a few families that have their kids in Hockey leagues. Maybe it's cheap in Alaska, but in Pennsylvania and NJ, I know that the parents that have their kids in these leagues are easily $400 - $600 thousand dollar income families. They can afford the new skates, and equip., not to leave out the fee's of the league and travel expenses. I guess that may be lower middle class in her eyes? Would just love to hear the two income family response to her Hockey Mom comments...the two income family that both work full time and maybe are making $80,000 a year.

It's not a typical middle class family that has their kids playing Ice Hockey.
Besides her ignoring Gwen Ifill and the questions, they should have just turned off her mic. and gone back to Biden.

Two words that are now in my brain that will annoy me to no end:

Heck and You Betchya...friggin feel like she should be in the movie Fargo.

Obviously, she just annoys the shit out of me. They shouldn't have allowed her to have index cards as well. You either know what your doing or you don't. She is a sham.

[Jerome Scuggs]

ok, i thought about it at work and im gonna try to keep it as brief as possible

Jerome can you explain to me how you would go about putting a free market in place.

Yes: Take two people. One of them has alot of wood. One of them has alot of fish. The former says "I have alot of wood but no food", the latter says "I have a lot of food but no wood". One day, one of them thinks "hey, if that guy gave me some wood, I could cook these fish, make my house, etc." He has two options. He can kill the dude, or rob him, and take the wood. Or, he could give the dude some of his fish, in exchange for some wood - and then both have enough of each without having to labor to acquire both.

Now multiply that scenario times infinity - and that is how man left the State of Nature to forge the State of Man. The second the two first humans ever made a trade, the free market was born. Man was no longer a victim of circumstances and his environment - society sprang up, freeing men from the harsh subsistence of Nature. All else... is history.

Since then, what we now see as "the free market" is merely the infinite aggregation of these smaller "markets" that have, more or less, all become very interconnected.

Take the human body. On the whole, yes, there is a "Body". But in reality, it's just a bunch of tiny, tiny cells. The cells, on a cellular level, organize themselves in incredibly different ways - to form different tissues. These tissues then organize in different ways - to form organs. Then, the organs combine in different ways - to form "the body". Similarly, the billions of "cell" markets organize themselves on different hierarchical layers to form the "global" market.

All in all, the "free market" is basically a blanket term for any instance in which two individuals make an exchange.

Because people have been able to make claims on recourses wether is has been by robbing or simply first come first serve. But what justifies their claims?

Outside of the human sphere - objective, unperceived reality - "ownership" and "rights" do not exist. Before a piece of land was discovered by someone, it didn't "Belong" to anyone - and the land certainly has no say in how it's used. Thus, the only justification needed was proof that the land truly did not belong to another human, and one could stake his claim.

As for robbery - that would be your area of expertise, assuming you support the State. The State gets all of its resources and revenue through robbery - and I see no justification for it. That is at the root of my claims of illegitimacy of State action.

If an individual robs another - there is no justification. It's a violation of property.

In order to start a free market you would have to destroy the current systems world wide.

Revision: in order to unhinder the currently existing free market, the worldwide system of coercive intervention would have to be destroyed. But, as we see today, the market has ways of tearing that apart with very little action necessary on behalf of individual actors.

How would you distribute worldy recources?

My argument is that noone should decide that except the owners of the resources themselves.

Would it have to be revenue sharing to a certain amount? Any human being should be allowed to make a claim on worldly or cosmic recourses.

Humans have no right to make a claim on anything they did not acquire legitimately.

Nobody legally owns them now because they were aquired in an unfair system.

Only resources acquired unfairly are illegitimate - i.e., every shred of government property. Private property is generally acquired through the process of contracts, which are completely legitimate. Governments acquire resources through coercion - such as taxes and Eminent Domain.

And so buying them would be buying them from every human being -ever- from now on.

I think this is a statement made with the underlying assumption that government, i.e. "public", property is in fact, truly public. But it's not - it's owned by the government, even if they let everyone use it.

I have no idea how government-owned property would be privatized - but considering 70% of government services are unnecessary (i.e. the CIA, FBI, etc etc etc etc etc), they would just... go away. That would still leave un-owned property - and a viable option would be the revival of "homesteading". Stake your claim on property, and see what happens. Undoubtedly there would be a rush to grab as much as possible - just like in the rush West in America - but, just like then, people would begin trading and re-organizing the property and eventually, the chaotic rush would settle into a relatively harmonious process.

Of course, if it can be shown that a certain piece of property does belong to someone - before it was stolen by the State - then it should be returned accordingly.

And what about technology that we already aquired?

See above - most technology was created in society, not at the hands of government, and thus it would still exist, since the technology was developed legitimately, using legitimate means and resources.

[Money]

I watched Eagle Eye, good movie.

[Cops]

I just don't agree with that, and how does it make me a douche? I also think that we as Dutch people (government) may have to make up for things we did wrong long time ago if we haven't yet.
Like the Goudstikker case, slavery in our 'golden century' or screwing over colonies.
If you judge your enemies by that standard, at least judge yourself by the same. It's a little easy to shrug and say that you just didn't vote for that particular president. That's just no excuse a minority always rules if you let them. The statement was lost on you.

Personally calling me a stoner and taking pot shots at me doesn't help your case, but failing to understand that the people were more or less powerless over their governments actions, as well as not realizing the Democrats didn't want to impeach Bush because it would mean the Republicans could impeach them. It's bad politics to get rid of your government. The people might have voted Bush in (hah), but realistically they didn't know who he was the first time around and the second time around people were scared into believing Bush was the only answer. This situation could have happened in any country anywhere in the world, and to blame the average American who may or may not have voted for Bush shows you don't understand why or how he was voted in.

The republicans ran the senate and house for what 10 of the past 11 years? The democrats haven't had the money or power to do anything, even if they could have impeached Bush it would set a bad standard for American politics. As much as Bush deserved to be impeached it was probably the right move. If you want to believe your country would have acted any differently than America then you're confused, the people weren't being informed of what was going on, so how in the hell do you expect millions of citizens to act on no information? Don't give me that shit about how it's the citizens right to inform themselves even if the news won't, people have jobs, lives, so as much as you'd like to think people have all the time in the world to look shit up and inform themselves they really don't.

[Zerzera]

Did you not smoke weed during that period of time? I thought you once said you did, maybe I have mistaken you for someone else then. If so I apologize.

It's funny that you say it could happen to any country, because that's exactly my point. And that's why the United States hold other countries (Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iraq) to impossible standards. We like to denounce other countries and say we have to free them, while we can't even keep control of our own country. So they prefer to live under the rule of their spiritual leader, so what if he curses the United States? They only want to be able to live without being slaughtered by tribes or whatever.

Did you ever see me seriously post that we had to invade the United States to free them from Bush? That we should help them because they were poor souls that didn't know how to live their lives properly? Or because his actions could disturb the distribution of resources and the global economy? No, because that's not how I think civilized countries operate.

Your post makes no sense at all though, to be honest I find it confusing.
And you paint a worse situation than I did.

So the Democrats knew that Bush was lying and abusing his power, but they didn't do anything against it because they would like the Republicans to support their abuse of power the coming 4 years. That sounds very healthy...
Earlier you claimed that half of the people were informed and didn't support Bush, and shouldn't be judged for what their president did -because they had an informed opinion against him-, but that they also didn't know their president was a fraud and liar at the same time.

It isn't bad to get rid of your government when they aren't doing a proper job, it happened a few times in the Netherlands the last few years. They have to be representatives of the people for crying out loud. If they refuse to be so, kick them out. This shouldn't be a Taliban like government we are talking about, we are talking about a free country. Bush doesn't get his orders straight from God now does he?
And the American people got access to all the information, I read of enough Americans being critics about the entire mishap -including data- and they were free to voice their opinion, it's just that the majority of people were in favor of going to war, that was their opinion -be it informed or not-. That's a fact you can't deny.
Just like you try to judge my opinion which is probably better informed than yours, but may I once be proven wrong I will just say I have been lied to and you can't blame me.


EDIT: No nevermind, you can look up your own posts about using weed.

[Cops]

For someone who says I might have been misinformed cause I was high five years is kind of ironic because I was on your squad and I played and got high every single god damn day, my life doesn't involved weed and it hasn't for a long time. I doubt you even remember this, even though I played steadily every day with you.

So whose got the worst memory? You have a very skewed and jaded view of America and the people who live there, As far as my opinions they are a hell of a lot more balanced then yours. I think genocidal wrapped up my views of you quite nicely in his post.

I'm pretty much done, this isn't the first time people have accused you of having Anti-American views, even though you've steadily denied that claim.

edit: one last thing, you do realize my economy as well as a good majority of the world's economy is based on the fact that America's economy does well? If you think taking down a democracy that isn't completely corrupt, just heavily misguided then that's your own radical view, and I do not agree that that democracy is worth tearing down. America might have been fucked up for the last 10 years but it's no where near as bad as Russia, China, Iran, etc.
I don't know who the fuck is feeding you your information but I'd invest some time in living in North America before you say America's democracy should have been torn down.

[Zerzera]

ok, i thought about it at work and im gonna try to keep it as brief as possible.

So you base the entire world on the first come, first serve. But in absolute truth you can't claim anything on this world over me if you can't convince me that your use of it is not only valid, but also most useful. Let's put it to extremes; if I would be the owner of all the crude oil in the world and I would be truthfully convinced that the best thing to do is to burn it all straight out of the well, there would be nothing stopping me in doing so?
From the moment I am self-supporting, there might be no need for me to trade anything. I can sit on all the ground I legally own and grow nothing but grain to feed the birds in the sky. They mean more to me than you who try to trade with me.

[Zerzera]

For someone who says I might have been misinformed cause I was high five years is kind of ironic because I was on your squad and I played and got high every single god damn day, my life doesn't involved weed and it hasn't for a long time. I doubt you even remember this, even though I played steadily every day with you.

You make the mistake of thinking that Zerzera has always been the same person. Especially in-game. But I know you were a pathetic stoner only a few years ago, yes, your point?

So whose got the worst memory? You have a very skewed and jaded view of America and the people who live there, As far as my opinions they are a hell of a lot more balanced then yours. I think genocidal wrapped up my views of you quite nicely in his post.

Why? What the fuck did I say that makes me hate people in America? They were in favor of a war and I don't judge them. I think they could have spent the money other countries invested in their economy a little better. But like I said, it is their own fucking right to do so, I would never ever support invading their country, or any country not even for their crime of unlawfully attacking another country.

In your opinion what is the stupidest thing George Bush ever did? Let's see how many things we can come up with, I'll start.

Choosing to go to war without the support of the U.N and discrediting any influence it may have had in the past.

I'm pretty much done, this isn't the first time people have accused you of having Anti-American views, even though you've steadily denied that claim.

Yes, because back then I claimed that America had no right to attack Iraq, they said I was anti-America. Now suddenly no one in America supported that war according to you and I am the anti-American again for saying they did. So I am both anti-American for saying they should not go to war and saying they wanted to go to war?
Don't make me dig into those posts back in the days because you sure will look like a douche.

edit: one last thing, you do realize my economy as well as a good majority of the world's economy is based on the fact that America's economy does well? If you think taking down a democracy that isn't completely corrupt, just heavily misguided then that's your own radical view, and I do not agree that that democracy is worth tearing down. America might have been fucked up for the last 10 years but it's no where near as bad as Russia, China, Iran, etc.
I don't know who the fuck is feeding you your information but I'd invest some time in living in North America before you say America's democracy should have been torn down.

Yes sir, I have been claiming this on these forums for over 4 years. I am very well aware of where I have put my money.

I said I would never take down a democracy, I am just not in favor of other countries invading countries for having a different way of living. You are totally twisting what I am saying in a very very weird way.
And I suggest you travel around in Russia, China .. where the fuck did Iran come from all of a sudden? Did I mention Iran? Oh wait.. you are a troll

[Jerome Scuggs]

So you base the entire world on the first come, first serve. But in absolute truth you can't claim anything on this world over me if you can't convince me that your use of it is not only valid, but also most useful.

No. Only government-owned property. The only thing you need to have to convince someone that the property is yours is a deed or contract or some form of legal documentation. Want to dispute the contract? Take it up with an arbitrator. If you violate someone's property, no matter how right you think you are, if they have a legitimate claim as recognized by society then you have no legal basis.

Let's put it to extremes; if I would be the owner of all the crude oil in the world and I would be truthfully convinced that the best thing to do is to burn it all straight out of the well, there would be nothing stopping me in doing so?

1- If you put it to extremes, what's to stop Bush from nuking the planet? Moot point.

2- A free market is a system which makes best use of all available resources. Burn up all the oil? Enjoy the useless land, we'll be driving electric.

3- If you truly think that - good luck raising the investor capital needed to drill every single drop of oil up - just to burn it. You're going to need capital to do that. You're going to have to convince people to give you money, so you can literally burn it away. And the free market isn't Congress - so people will probably think twice, especially when they're expecting a return on their investment.

4- but, all in all - yes. There's nothing to stop you. But I will assert that it will never, ever, ever happen. How do I know this? Because the free market weeds bad ideas out before they can become big. There are thousands of others with good ideas for the use of oil and they will get the contracts.

Alot of people who argue against free markets always go "to the extreme". I find that odd - they apparently can't find a truly wasteful or bad instance of a free market operating today. Ask me to find you examples of government "extremes" and hell, I could give you today's newspaper. But there's a reason these "extreme" free market scenarios never have or ever will occur.

From the moment I am self-supporting, there might be no need for me to trade anything. I can sit on all the ground I legally own and grow nothing but grain to feed the birds in the sky.

Completely legitimate within the free market. Hell, start a commune if you want - so long as the land is yours, you're free to do with it as you please.

They mean more to me than you who try to trade with me.

Quite alright, broseph. iPods and microwaves and cable T.V. and medicine and microwave hot pockets are important to me - plus, I can still feed birds.

[Epinephrine]

Of course, if it can be shown that a certain piece of property does belong to someone - before it was stolen by the State - then it should be returned accordingly.

This is pretty silly. Why would anyone 'return' something? Who would enforce this? Without any sort of relatively impartial organizational body (i.e democratic government) whom would you trust to do it? In your example, might would make right. Without the absence of anything to protect the rights of the poor, the rich would easily just trample over everyone else with money, and thus a new feudal age would begin anew.

[Kolar]

Homer tries to vote for Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuQF3pUEdYs

[Zerzera]

This is pretty silly. Why would anyone 'return' something?

He's not against some sort of government, he just thinks you can separate law from economics ultimately and that the government will only deal with objective law enforcement.

But I still don't agree that total free market will work this way Jerome, in the current system freedom is abused already. Not all this abuse is enforced by the government and still can reach a pretty big scale without the governments interference. It won't destroy your free market system, but neither does it destroy the current system. The damage done is subjective.
Of course you go to extremes when testing a system and put controls in place accordingly so these extremes can't be met.
You will have to prove how the market will regulate itself. You assume that people will not try to abuse it because they have to see how that might harm them on the long run. But people don't always think that way.
In your system no money you will ever make has to be returned, so if you use a harmful method to make enough cash to live out your life you could do so. I think that's a cancer to your system, it might well turn into an uncontrolled race to the fast cashing.

PS: I am assuming you can only be working with cash that has an intrinsic value here.

[phata$$]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-19-m...rom-vp-debate/

[Stompa]

You know Jerome, there really is no point in writing such long posts and referencing people and theories that almost nobody on this forum has any idea about or have ever heard of. I mean it might help to have a bit of a primer which isn't just a linked article (which you didn't even provide!). You're going way beyond the knowledge of most people to allow them to make an educated and critical appraisal of what you wrote possible.

I might as well have just written some random posts about the effects of low molecular weight heparin vs heparin in the coagulation cascade as it effects the rates of heparin induced thrombolysis.


From your huge Austrian school post (there's an Austrian school? News to me), all I can say is that even Nostradamus was right a lot of the time. And even Chris Carter predicted 9/11 a year before it would happen... sorta.

Yo Jerome I read your posts don't stop ok